Determinant of Carbon Emission Disclosure at Mining

ICE-BEES 2018International Conference on Economics Business and Economic Education 2018Volume 2018

Conference Paper

Determinant of Carbon Emission Disclosure atMining Companies Listed in Indonesia StockExchangeNanies Putri Halimah and Heri YantoDepartment of Accounting Faculty of Economics Universitas Negeri Semarang L2 Building 2ndFlor FE UNNES Sekaran College Gunungpati Semarang 50229

AbstractThis study aims to examine and obtain empirical evidence on determinants ofcarbon emissions disclosure at mining companies listed in Indonesia Stock ExchangeSeveral factors involved in this study there are leverage profitability firm size andinstitutional ownership In addition population of this study is 41 mining companieslisted in Indonesia Stock Exchange Meanwhile sample is selected using purposivesampling technique which produced 56 unit of analysis This study also uses contentanalysis techniques on annual reports andor sustainability reports in 4 years tomeasure carbon emission disclosure Data collection is conducted by documentationtechnique Moreover multiple rank regression with SPSS version 23 applications isexecuted to analyze the data Results indicate that leverage profitability firm sizeand institutional ownership have significant and negative effect on carbon emissiondisclosure Therefore it can be concluded that the higher leverage profitability firmsize and institutional ownership of the company carbon emission disclosure which isreported by mining companies in Indonesia will be lower

Keywords Carbon Emission Disclosure Firmrsquos Size Institutional Ownership LeverageProfitability

1 Introduction

Global warming and public concerns about disasters caused by global warming that

could endanger living creatures remains an international hot topic [5] Based on obser-

vations by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) earth tempera-

ture has continuously increased and in January to September 2016 earth temperature

reached out the hottest level for 35 years [28] Specifically global warming is a phe-

nomenon of increasing global temperature due to greenhouse gas effect produced by

How to cite this article Nanies Putri Halimah and Heri Yanto (2018) ldquoDeterminant of Carbon Emission Disclosure at Mining Companies Listedin Indonesia Stock Exchangerdquo in International Conference on Economics Business and Economic Education 2018 KnE Social Sciences pages 127ndash141DOI 1018502kssv3i103124

Corresponding Author

Nanies Putri Halimah

naniesputrigmailcom

Received 7 August 2018

Accepted 15 September 2018

Published 22 October 2018

Publishing services provided by

Knowledge E

Nanies Putri Halimah and Heri

Yanto This article is distributed

under the terms of the Creative

Commons Attribution License

which permits unrestricted use

and redistribution provided that

the original author and source

are credited

Selection and Peer-review

under the responsibility of the

ICE-BEES 2018 Conference

Committee

ICE-BEES 2018

increased emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) methane (CH4) dinitrook-

sida (N2O) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) which cause solar energy is being trapped

in the atmosphere (Riebeek 2010 in [4])

This increasingly dangerous global warming is driven by greenhouse gas emissions

produced by human actions The most dangerous increase in greenhouse gases is

caused by CO2 emissions released through human activities such as deforestation

fossil fuel use increased industrial quantities and natural processes including respira-

tion and volcanic eruptions Unfortunately our planet capacity to process this waste

has been greatly weakened by widespread andmore destruction of the worldrsquos forests

World Resources Institute (WRI) on its official website stated that Indonesia ranks

6th world largest contributing country of carbon emissions in 2014 after United States

European Union China India and Russia The amount of carbon emissions contributed

by Indonesia in 2014 amounted to 205 billion Mt CO2e Furthermore worldrsquos con-

cern about climate change due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases has

prompted the emergence of an international agreement called Kyoto Protocol in 1997

Indonesia ratified the first Kyoto Protocol on 28 June 2004 through Law no 17 in 2004

Then in 2011 Indonesia also issued presidential regulations as legal basis for the imple-

mentation of greenhouse gas emission

reduction There are Presidential Regulation No 61 on National Action Plan for

Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (RAN-GRK) and Presidential Regulation No 71

of 2011 on the Implementation of National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (Supriadi et al

Existing regulations lead Indonesian entities that contribute to carbon emissions in

the air participate in supporting the government to achieve its goal of reducing carbon

emissions by 2030 Their participation is reflected in information disclosure of carbon

emissions through annual report and sustainability report However currently carbon

emissions disclosure practices in Indonesia is voluntary disclosure [25] Non-financial

companies in Indonesia Stock Exchange which disclose carbon emission during 2010-

2012 is 37 from 339 companies and 32 companies from 332 total companies in the

period of 2012-2014 [1 19]

Previous research on carbon emission disclosure showed inconsistent results thus

researchers interested to elaborate more For instance research by Bae Choi et al

DOI 1018502kssv3i103124 Page 128

ICE-BEES 2018

(2013) on carbon emissions disclosure in Australian companies showed that lever-

age and profitability do not affect carbon emissions disclosure while firm size indus-

try type carbon emission level and quality of corporate governance have significant

effect on carbon emission disclosure

Jannah amp Muid (2014) analyzed factors that influence Carbon Emission Disclosure in

Indonesian companies They found that leverage has significant and negative effect to

carbon emission disclosure whereas firm size profitability media exposure and indus-

try type have significant and positive impact Moreover environmental performance

in their study demonstrated no significant effect on carbon emissions disclosure

In addition Akhiroh amp Kiswanto (2016) executed a research entitled Determinant of

Carbon Emission Disclosure Results indicated that profitability

organizational visibility managerial ownership and audit committee have significant

and positive impact while environmental performance financial distress institutional

ownership and independent commissioners have no effect on carbon emission dis-

closure

Jaggi et al (2017) also conducted a study entitled The Factors Motivating Voluntary

Disclosure of Carbon Information Evidence Based on Italian Listed Company which

showed that environmental committees institutional ownership and emission treding

scheme significantly and positively affect carbon information disclosure Meanwhile

proportion of independent directors found to not have any effect

Based on the backrgound and previous research that show inconsistencies results

researcher wants to re-examine the factors that affect carbon emission disclosure

Basically this study is conducted by referring to previous researches on carbon emis-

sion disclosure The study aims to analyze the effect of leverage profitability firm

size and institutional ownership Originality of this research lies in its research object

which is mining company listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange (BEI) during the period of

2013-2016 Throughout the researcherrsquos knowledge no research has been executed on

factors affecting carbon emission disclosure at mining companies listed in BEI during

the period of 2013-2016

There are three theories supporting this study First theory of legitimacy Dowling amp

Pfeffer (1975) provided a view of the theory of legitimacy that an organization strives

to build harmony between the social values associated with their activities and accept-

able behavioral norms on a larger social system in which their organization exists

Organizational legitimacy can be obtained if these two value systems are aligned

Therefore company will disclose carbon emissions in its annual report or sustainability

DOI 1018502kssv3i103124 Page 129

ICE-BEES 2018

report to aware the public that its operation is consistent with surrounding community

values

Stakeholder theory said that a company is not an entity that operates for its own

business only but it should provide benefits to its stakeholders The existence of a com-

pany is strongly influenced stakeholders supports to the company (Ghozali amp Chariri

2007 in [19]) Thus when stakeholders take control of important economic resources

companies will seek to meet the needs of stakeholders (Ullman 1985 in [36])

Jensen amp Meckling (1976) defined agency relationships as contracts between one or

more principal with agents to perform services (ex managing companies) including

providinge the agents of authority as decision makers There is however a strong rea-

son that agents will not always act in the best interests of the principal This condition

could trigger information asymmetry

Information asymmetry occured when management has information on a company

that is not owned by an outsider [10] Therefore companies are expected to make

voluntary disclosures about company information such as environmental issues which

in this case is carbon emissions disclosure By doing this it is expected to minimize

information asymmetry between agents and principals

Leverage describes companyrsquos assets and financial risks that become expense in the

future [27] Greater leverage ratio reflects higher companyrsquos debt value [3] According

to stakeholder theory creditor is one of stakeholders who has power to influence

the company If the leverage ratio is greater creditor will give more pressure to the

company Research conducted by Irwhantoko amp Basuki (2016) and Peng et al (2014)

showed that leverage has significant and negative effect on carbon emission disclo-

sure Thus firms with high leverage tends to concentrate more on repaying their debts

by making non-mandatory disclosures Based on this the hypothesis is

H1 Leverage has significant effect on Carbon Emisssion Disclosure

Profitability is a ratio to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of a company in

managing all its assets to generate profit [16] Profitability reflects companyrsquos finan-

cial performance Companies with poor financial performance will give extra focus

on achieving financial goals and improving their performance and thus cause their

capabilities in preventing and reporting carbon emissions become limited [30] This

study uses ROA ratio to calculate profitability ROA is chosen because it can describe

efficiency of the company in using its asset to gain profit

DOI 1018502kssv3i103124 Page 130

ICE-BEES 2018

According to the theory of legitimacy society requires company to conduct social

responsibility to the surrounding environment Good corporate performance will affect

how fast company responses to the issue Companies with better performance will

have greater ability for disclosure and having more details disclosure area as well

(Roberts 1992 in [17])

There are three different results of previous research Cahya (2016) and Jannah amp

Muid (2014) found that profitability affects carbon emission disclosure However Bae

Choi et al (2013) showed that carbon emission disclosure is not affected by profitabil-

ity Moreovre Yanto amp Muzzammil (2016) also found the difference that is there is

a negative relationship between profitability to environmental disclosure It means

that greater level of profitability will cause more limited disclosure for environmental

information od the company

Based on the theory and results of previous research it can be concluded that com-

panies with good profitability will be able to provide additional employee or financial

resources for voluntary disclosure Therefore companies with good financial perfor-

mance are expected to engage in carbon emissions disclosure So the hypothesis is

as follows

H2 Profitability has significant effect on carbon emission disclosure

Firm size represents companyrsquos resources means the larger the companyrsquos size

the greater its resources [7] People have higher expectations about carbon manage-

ment practices by large companies Therefore large companies are more responsive

in meeting disclosure demands (Freedman amp Jaggi 2005 in [23]) Based on the the-

ory of legitimacy large firms have a greater tendency to disclose information about

carbon emissions Larger companies are getting higher pressure from the community

and stakeholders In addition large company also avoid huge cost due to community

demands in the future [26]

Jannah amp Muid (2014) showed that firm size has significant and positive effect on

carbon emission disclosure Nevertheless Dibia amp Onwuchekwa (2015) found negative

and significant relationship between firm size and oil and gas environment disclosure

in Nigeria Based on the findings and theories above the researchers concluded that

larger firm size driven company to disclose more about its carbon emissions Below is

the hypothesis

H3 Firm size has significant effect on carbon emission disclosure

DOI 1018502kssv3i103124 Page 131

ICE-BEES 2018

Relationship between institutional ownership and carbon emissions disclosure may

come into debates According to agency theory in the positive side institutional own-

ership can be an effective control mechanism in every decision taken by management

[31] As a result managers are under pressure to always meet the information needs

of investors including carbon information [18] On the other hand (from a negative

perspective) high institutional ownership can influence companies to reduce the dis-

closure of voluntary corporate information or manipulate disclosures to maximize their

personal benefits This kind of conflict is known as the principal agency which produce

an agency problem between majority and those minority shareholder [13]

Previous studies also found contrary results Chang amp Zhang (2015) stated that com-

panies with a large proportion of institutional ownership will voluntarily disclose more

environmental information Whereas Akhiroh amp Kiswanto (2016) showed that institu-

tional ownership has no effect on carbon emissions disclosure Furthermore Alhaza-

imeh et al (2014) found that there is significant and negative relationship between

block holder ownership (which is proxied by institutional ownership) with voluntary

disclosure Thus hypothesis that can be formulated by is as follows

H4 Institutional ownership has significant effect on Carbon Emission Disclosure

Leverage H1

Profitability Carbon Emission Disclosure H3

Firm size

Institutional

Figure 1 Research Model

2 Research Methodology

This is a quantitative study with mining industry companies as research object Popu-

lation of this research is 41 mining companies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX)

and purposive sampling techniquewith defined criteria is employed to obtain the sam-

ple (Table 1) There are 14 companies that meet the criteria with 4 years observation

period (2013-2016) thus there are 56 unit analysis In addition this study specifically

examine carbon emission disclosure leverage profitability firm size and institutional

DOI 1018502kssv3i103124 Page 132

ICE-BEES 2018

ownership Data is collected using documentation techniques from secondary data

including annual report andor sustainability report from mining company listed in

Indonesia Stock Exchange (BEI) during the period of 2013-2016

T 1 Criteria on Sample Selection

Description No Yes

Total mining companies listed in Indonesia Stick Exchange 41

Listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange during the period of2013-2016

(2) 39

Company publishes annual report andor sustainability reportduring the period of 2013-2016

Company which does not disclose indicator to measurecarbon emission disclosure

(25) 14

Sample based on the criteria 14

Year of observation 4

Total unit of analysis during the period of 2013-2016 56

Source Processed secondary data 2018

Data analysis methods used is descriptive statistical analysis consists of maximum

value minimum value mean and standard deviation and inferential statistics by using

multiple regression analysis with SPSS version 23 Regression testing is also conducted

for classical assumption test there are normality test autocorrelation test multico-

linearity test and heteroscedasticity test Operational definition of each variable is

demonstrated in table 2T 2 Operational Definition of Variables

Variable Definition Indicator

Carbon EmissionDisclosure

The extent of environmentalresponsibility information bycompany which in this case relatedto carbon emission [7]

Total item disclosed based onresearch indicator by [7]

LeverageRatio to measure how muchcompanyrsquos liability pays the asset[21]

DAR =Total LiabilityTotal Asset

Profitability Company liability to gain profit frombusiness activity [6]

ROA = Net Income After TaxTotal Asset

Firm sizeFirm size reflects companyrsquosresources bigger firm sizerepresents greater resources [7]

Firm size = Ln (Total Asset)

InstitutionalOwnership

Concentrated ownership which ismeasured by stock percentage ofinstitutional shareholder [15]

KI =Stock owned by institution

Outstanding stock

Source Researcher Summary 2018

Checklist index for carbon emission disclosure is presented in Table 3

DOI 1018502kssv3i103124 Page 133

ICE-BEES 2018

T 3 Carbon Emission Disclosure Checklist

Category Item

1 ndash Climate change risks andopportunities

CC1 ndash assessmentdescription of the risks (regulatoryphysical or general) relating to climate change andactions taken or to be taken to manage the risks

CC2 ndash assessmentdescription of current (and future)financial implications business implications andopportunities of climate change

2 ndash GHG emissions accounting GHG1 ndash description of the methodology used tocalculate GHG emissions (eg GHG protocol or ISO)

GHG2 ndash existence external verification of quantity ofGHG emissionndash if so by whom and on what basis

GHG3 ndash total GHG emissions ndash metric tonnes CO2-eemitted

GHG4 ndash disclosure of Scopes 1 and 2 or Scope 3 directGHG emissions

GHG5 ndash disclosure of GHG emissions by sources (egcoal electricity etc)

GHG6 ndash disclosure of GHG emissions by facility orsegment level

GHG7 ndash comparison of GHG emissions with previousyears

3 ndash Energy consumption Accounting EC1 ndash total energy consumed (eg tera-joules or peta-joules)

EC2 ndash quantification of energy used from renewablesources

EC3 ndash disclosure by type facility or segment

4 ndash GHG reduction and cost RC1 ndash detail of plans or strategies to reduce GHGemissions RC2 ndash specification of GHG emissionsreduction target level and target year

RC3 ndash emissions reductions and associated costs orsavings achieved to date as a result of the reductionplan RC4 ndash cost of future emissions factored intocapital expenditure planning

5 ndash Carbon emission accountability ACC1 ndash indication of which board committee (or otherexecutive body) has overall responsibility for actionsrelated to climate change

ACC2 ndash description of the mechanism by which theboard (or other executive body) reviews thecompanyrsquos progress regarding climate change

Source Bae Choi et al 2013

3 Results and Discussion

Descriptive statistical results describe data of research variable there are carbon emis-

sion disclosure (CED) leverage profitability firm size and institutional ownership Here

is the description of each variable

DOI 1018502kssv3i103124 Page 134

ICE-BEES 2018

T 4 Descriptive Statistic

N Min Max Mean Std Deviation

CED 56 006 067 02414 017302

LEV 56 010 190 05093 035831

PROF 56 -064 039 00260 014984

KI 56 2918 9700 665303 1876690

SIZE 56 1525 3208 243280 533097

Source SPSS Output 2018

Based on Table 4 Carbon Emission Disclosure (CED) has minimum value of 006

maximum value of 067 02414 in average with standard deviation of 017302 How-

ever standard deviation value is under themean value thus data deviation is relatively

small This means that the variable is great because the sample is in the average area

of the calculation

In addition leverage has minimum value of 010 maximum value of 190 an average

value of 05093 with a standard deviation of 035831 As CED standar deviation in

leverage is smaller that the average Therefore data deviation is considerably small

Meanwhile profitability -064 039 and 00260 in its minimum maximum and aver-

age respectively Mean value of 00260 demonstrated that most mining companies in

Indonesia has profit at 26 of its total asset Furthermore the standar deviation of

profitability is 014984 which is higher than the average value This data indicated that

there is significant diffences among the data

Data showed that firm size has minimum value of 1525 maximum value of 3208

while the average value is 243280 with a standard deviation of 533097 Standard

deviation which is below the average value means that discrepancies among data

is relatively small Moreover institutional ownership has minimum value of 2918

maximum value of 9700 665303 in mean with standard deviation of 1876690 which

indicates that data deviation is considerably insignificant

This study also run inferential statistical analysis including classical assumption test

and multiple regression analysis with SPSS 23rd version On classical assumption test

it is found that the data is not normally distributed but other assumptions have been

fulfilled Even though various ways such as changing the data to another form are

taken normality test produce similar result Therefore this study employs multiple

rank regression that goes into non-parametric domain Furthermore hypothesis is

examined by observing significance value magnitude If the value is less than 005

DOI 1018502kssv3i103124 Page 135

ICE-BEES 2018

hypothesis will be accepted Table 5 demonstrates the results summary However

regression equation in this study is

119877CED = 73 541 minus 0 376119877LEV minus 0 346119877PROF minus 0 495119877SIZE minus 0 363119877KI + 120598

T 5 Summary of Hypotheses Testing

No Hypotheses BetaCoefficient

Sig Description

1 H1 Leverage has significant effect on carbonemission disclosure

-0376 0002 Accepted

2 H2 Profitability has significant effect oncarbon emission disclosure

-0346 0004 Accepted

3 H3 Firm size has significant effect on carbonemission disclosure

-0495 0000 Accepted

4 H4 Institutional ownership has significanteffect on carbon emission disclosure

-0363 0003 Accepted

31 The effect of leverage on carbon emission disclosure

First hypothesis examines the effect of leverage on carbon emission disclosure

Results showed that leverage has significant effect on carbon emission disclosure

thus hypothesis 1 is accepted In addition negative effect is found on the relation of

these two It means that higher leverage in Indonesian mining companies leads to

lower carbon emissions disclosure by the company

This finding supports stakeholder theory which states that the higher the level of

corporate leverage company will obtain great pressure from creditors to carry out its

obligations that is paying off debt lent by creditors Consequently company

undertakes cost management by reducing carbon emissions disclosure This cost

management is conducted due to limited economic resources owned hence company

is required to choose between paying the obligation or performing voluntary disclosure

[19] This finding is in line with the results of researches by Jannah amp Muid (2014) Luo

et al (2013) Peng et al (2014) who stated that leverage negatively affects carbon

emission disclosure

32 The effect of profitability on carbon emission disclosure

Second hypothesis examines the effect of profitability on carbon emission disclosure

Results indicated that profitability has significant effect on carbon emission disclosure

DOI 1018502kssv3i103124 Page 136

ICE-BEES 2018

The relationship is found to be negative It means that higher level of profitability of

mining companies in Indonesia directs to lower carbon emissions disclosure by the

company

This results does not support the theory of legitimacy which states that better

company performance encourage company to exposemore of its voluntary disclosure

including carbon emissions disclosure Moreover this finding is also in contrary to Akhi-

roh amp Kiswanto (2016) Cahya (2016) Jannah amp Muid (2014) who demonstrated that

profitability has positive effect on carbon emission disclosure However the results

of this study is consistent to Yanto amp Muzzammil (2016) finding that profitability has

negative and significant impact on environmental disclosure

Yanto amp Muzzammil (2016) argued that there are reasons for negative impact of

profitability on environmental disclosure First environmental disclosure in Indonesia

is voluntary In addition Monitory Agency for Capital Market and Financial Institutions

(BAPEPAM-LK) does not determine environmental disclosure as one of the require-

ments in Indonesia Stock Exchange Second companies with low profitability take

advantage of environmental disclosure for legitimacy purposes Conversely compa-

nies with high profitability do not need to expand their environmental disclosure as it

may disrupt financial achievement of the company [17]

33 The effect of firm size on carbon emission disclosure

Third hypothesis investigates the effect of firm size on carbon emission disclosure It

is found that firm size affects carbon emission disclosure therefore hypothesis 3 is

accepted Specifically the effects between these two is negative This finding indi-

cated that bigger firm of Indonesian mining companies tends to disclose more limited

information of its carbon emission disclosure

This finding conctradicts the theory of legitimacy which states that companies with

larger size have a greater tendency to disclose information about carbon emissions

However the results support Dibia amp Onwuchekwa (2015) who showed that there

is negative relationship between firm size and disclosure of oil and gas companies

in Nigeria There are several argument regarding this finding First big companies

become more vulnerable to political attacks such as pressure for social responsibility

implementation as well as subject to larger regulations such as price controls and

high corporate taxes Therefore company reacts to not being attention center related

to its published information That is why large company tends to disclose less detailed

DOI 1018502kssv3i103124 Page 137

ICE-BEES 2018

information in annual reports (Wallace amp Nasser 1995 in [24]) Second smaller com-

panies among others in the same industry will have huge motivation to compete

Hence those companies may produce more information including voluntary disclosure

to attract potential investors

34 The effect of institutional ownership oncarbon emission disclosure

Fourth hypothesis examines the effect of institutional ownership on carbon emission

disclosure Results showed that institutional ownership has significant effect on carbon

emission disclosure In addition the impact is found to be negative Therefore higher

institutional ownership in Indonesian mining company encourage company to reduce

its carbon emission disclosure This means that the higher the

level of presentation of institutional ownership in mining companies in Indonesia

the lower disclosure of carbon emissions by companies

The results do not support agency theory which states that institutional owner-

ship can be an effective control mechanism in every decision taken by management

However this study is consistent with studies by Ezhilarasi amp Kabra (2017) and Lakhal

(2005) who found that there is negative relationship between institutional ownership

and to the extent its companyrsquos environmental disclosure Furthermore Alhazaimeh

et al (2014) also demonstrated that there is negative relationship between institu-

tional ownership and voluntary disclosure This condition occurred due to low pressure

of institutional owner to make voluntary disclosure Institutional owners as majority

shareholder have great authority to encourage company not to make voluntary dis-

closures as they want to maximize their profits Nevertheless according to agency

theory such action will lead to agency issues between the majority shareholder and

minority shareholder due to unknown corporate information by minority shareholders

4 Conclusion

Results indicated that leverage profitability firm size and institutional ownership

significantly affect carbon emission disclosure Hence all hypotheses are accepted

Moreover further researchers is recommended to measure carbon emission disclosure

using other indicators which have been adapted into Indonesian conditions such

as those indicators used by Jaggi et al (2017) in his research entitled The Factors

DOI 1018502kssv3i103124 Page 138

ICE-BEES 2018

Motivating Voluntary Disclosure Of Carbon Information Evidence Based On Italian

Listed Companies In addition determination coefficient of the study is less than

50 thus future research may investigates other factors that affect carbon emission

disclosure such as environmental performance firm age media exposure and growth

opportunity

References

[1] Akhiroh T amp Kiswanto K (2016) The Determinant Of Carbon Emission Disclosures

Accounting Analysis Journal 5(4) 326ndash336

[2] Alhazaimeh A Palaniappan R amp Almsafir M (2014) The impact of corporate

governance and ownership structure on voluntary disclosure in annual reports

among listed jordanian companies Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 129 341ndash

[3] Andriyani R amp Khafid M (2014) Analisis Pengaruh Leverage Ukuran Perusahaan

Dan Voluntary Diclosure Terhadap Manipulasi Aktivitas Riil Accounting Analysis

Journal 3(3) 273-281

[4] Anggraeni D Y (2015) Pengungkapan Emisi Gas Rumah Kaca Kinerja Lingkungan

Dan Nilai Perusahaan Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Indonesia 12(2) 188ndash209

[5] Atikah (2018) Hubungan ldquoGlobal Coolingrdquo dan ldquoGlobal Warmingrdquo Terhadap

Perubahan Iklim Retrieved from httpswwwkompasianacomismahatikahk

5a7c7ed5cbe523597a135214hubungan-global-cooling-dan-global-warming-

terhadap-perubahan-iklim

[6] Aulia F Z amp Agustina L (2015) Pengaruh Karakteristik Perusahaan Kinerja

Lingkungan Dan Liputan Media Terhadap Environmental Disclosure Accounting

Analysis Journal 4(3) 1-8

[7] Bae Choi B Lee D amp Psaros J (2013) An analysis of Australian company carbon

emission disclosures Pacific Accounting Review 25(1) 58ndash79

[8] Cahya B T (2016) Carbon Emission Disclosure Ditinjau dari Media Exposure

Kinerja Lingkungan dan Karakteristik Perusahaan Go Public Berbasis Syariah di

Indonesia Nizham Journal of Islamic Studies 4(2) 170ndash188

[9] Chang K amp Zhang L (2015) The effects of corporate ownership structure on

environmental information disclosure-empirical evidence from unbalanced penal

data in heavy-pollution industries in China WSEAS Transactions on Systems and

Control 10 405ndash414

DOI 1018502kssv3i103124 Page 139

ICE-BEES 2018

[10] Dewi S P amp Chandra J S (2016) Pengaruh Pengungkapan Sukarela Asimetri

Informasi dan Manajemen Laba Terhadap Cost of Equity Capital Pada Perusahaan

Manufaktur Jurnal Bisnis Dan Akuntansi 18(1) 25ndash32

[11] Dibia N O amp Onwuchekwa J C (2015) Determinants of Environmental Disclosures

in Nigeria A Case Study of Oil and Gas Companies International Journal of Finance

and Accounting 4(3) 145ndash152

[12] Dowling J amp Pfeffer J (1975) Organizational legitimacy Social values and

organizational behavior Pacific Sociological Review 18(1) 122ndash136

[13] El-Diftar D Jones E Ragheb M dan Soliman M (2017) Institutional investors and

voluntary disclosure and transparency the case of Egypt Corporate Governance The

International Journal of Business in Society 17(1) 134ndash151

[14] Ezhilarasi G amp Kabra K C (2017) The Impact of Corporate Governance Attributes

on Environmental Disclosures Evidence from India Indian Journal of Corporate

Governance 10(2) 24ndash43

[15] Fortunella A P amp Hadiprajitno P B (2015) The Effects Of Corporate Governance

Structure And Firm Characteristic Towards Environmental Disclosure Diponegoro

Journal Of Accounting 4(2) 717ndash727

[16] Hermawan S amp Mafrsquoulah A N (2014) Pengaruh Kinerja Keuangan Terhadap

Nilai Perusahaan Dengan Pengungkapan Corporate Social Responsibility Sebagai

Variabel Pemoderasi Jurnal Dinamika Akuntansi 6(2) 103-118

[17] Irwhantoko I amp Basuki B (2016) Carbon Emission Disclosure Studi pada

Perusahaan Manufaktur Indonesia Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan 18(2) 92ndash 104

[18] Jaggi B Allini A Macchioni R amp Zagaria C (2017) The factors motivating

voluntary disclosure of carbon information Evidence based on Italian listed

companies Organization dan Environment 00(0) 1-25

[19] Jannah R amp Muid D (2014) Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Carbon

Emission Disclosure Pada Perusahaan Di Indonesia (Studi Empiris Pada Perusahaan

Yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode 2010-2012) Diponegoro Journal Of

Accounting 3(2) 1000ndash1010

[20] Jensen M C amp Meckling W H (1976) Theory of the firm Managerial behavior

agency costs and ownership structure Journal of Financial Economics 3(4) 305ndash 360

[21] Kasmir (2012) Analisis Laporan Keuangan Jakarta Raja Grafindo Persada Lakhal

F (2005) Voluntary earnings disclosures and corporate governance

[22] Evidence from France Review of Accounting and Finance 4(3) 64ndash85

DOI 1018502kssv3i103124 Page 140

ICE-BEES 2018

[23] Luo L Tang Q amp Lan Y (2013) Comparison of propensity for carbon disclosure

between developing and developed countries A resource constraint perspective

Accounting Research Journal 26(1) 6ndash34

[24] Maimako S S amp Ayila U R (2015) Association between Firm Size Firm Effects and

the Extent of Compliance with Accounting Standards Disclosures by Government

Business Enterprises in Nigeria International Journal of Business and Social Science

6(11) 138-156

[25] Majid R A amp Ghozali I (2015) Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi

Pengungkapan Emisi Gas Rumah Kaca Pada Perusahaan Di Indonesia Diponegoro

[26] Marwati C P amp Yulianti Y (2015) Analisis Pengungkapan Sustainability Report

Pada Perusahaan Non-Keuangan Tahun 2009-2013 Jurnal Dinamika Akuntansi 7(2)

167-181

[27] Nainggolan N amp Solikhah B (2017) Pengaruh Asset Growth Leverage Dan Earning

Variability Terhadap Risiko Sistematik Accounting Analysis Journal 5(2) 86ndash93

[28] NASA (2018) lsquoCarbon Dioxide Levels in The Air at Their Highest in 650000 Yearsrsquo

Available at httpsclimatenasagov

[29] Peng J Sun J amp Luo R (2014) Corporate Voluntary Carbon Information Disclosure

Evidence from Chinarsquos Listed Companies The World Economy 38(1) 91ndash109

[30] Prado-Lorenzo J-M Rodriacuteguez-Domiacutenguez L Gallego-Alvarez I amp Garciacutea-

Saacutenchez I-M (2009) Factors influencing the disclosure of greenhouse gas

emissions in companies world-wide Management Decision 47(7) 1133ndash1157

[31] Purnamasari I C amp Suhermin S (2017) Corporate Social Responsibility Kepemi-

likan Institusional Dan Kepemilikan Manajerial Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan Jurnal

Ilmu dan Riset Manajemen 6(3) 1-16

[32] Sulistyono (2012) Pemanasan Global (Global Warming) dan Hubungannya dengan

Penggunaan Bahan Bakar Fossil Forum Teknologi 2(2) 47-56

[33] Supriadi A Oktaviani K Kencono Agung Wahyu Prasetyo B E amp Kurniasih

[34] T N (2016) Data Inventory Emisi GRK Sektor Energi Jakarta Pusat

[35] WRI Indonesia | Making Big Ideas Happen (2018) Available at httpwwwwri-

indonesiaorg

[36] Yanto H amp Muzzammil B S (2016) A Long Way To Implement Environmental

Reporting In Indonesian Mining Companies Ijaber 14(10) 6493ndash6514

DOI 1018502kssv3i103124 Page 141

Introduction

Research Methodology

Results and Discussion

The effect of leverage on carbon emission disclosure

The effect of profitability on carbon emission disclosure

The effect of firm size on carbon emission disclosure

The effect of institutional ownership oncarbon emission disclosure

Conclusion

References